254 OF THE ADVANCEMENT OF LEARNING 



exalted unto some height of terms, than any thing solid or 

 substantive of itself. Nevertheless I cannot be ignorant of 

 the distinction which is current, that the same things are 

 handled but in several respects ; as for example, that logic 

 considereth of many things as they are in notion, and this 

 philosophy as they are in nature ; the one in appearance, 

 the other in existence. But I find this difference better 

 made than pursued. For if they had considered Quantity, 

 Similitude, Diversity, and the rest of those Extern Charac- 

 ters of things, as philosophers, and in nature, their inquiries 

 must of force have been of a far other kind than they are. 

 For doth any of them, in handling Quantity, speak of the 

 force of union, how and how far it multiplieth virtue ? 

 Doth any give the reason, why some things in nature are 

 so common and in so great mass, and others so rare and in 

 so small quantity ? Doth any, in handling Similitude and 

 Diversity, assign the cause why iron should not move 

 to iron, which is more like, but move to the loadstone, 

 which is less like ? Why in all diversities of things 

 there should be certain participles in nature, which are 

 almost ambiguous to which kind they should be referred ? 

 But there is a mere and deep silence touching the nature 

 and operation of those Common Adjuncts of things, as in 

 nature ; and only a resuming and repeating of the force 

 and use of them in speech or argument. Therefore, 

 because in a writing of this nature I avoid all subtlety, my 

 meaning touching this original or universal philosophy is 

 thus, in a plain and gross description by negative : t That 

 it be a receptacle for all such profitable observations and 

 axioms as fall not within the compass of any of the special 

 parts of philosophy or sciences, but are more common and 

 of a higher stage.' 



Now that there are many of that kind need not be 

 doubted. For example ; is not the rule, Si inaequalibus 

 aequalia addas, omnia erunt inaequalia, an axiom as well of 

 justice as of the mathematics ? And is there not a true 

 coincidence between commutative and distributive justice, 

 and arithmetical and geometrical proportion ? Is not 

 that other rule, Qiuae in eodem tertio conveniunt, et inter $e 



